thank you for your amazing letter of August 18, 1976. But you really
don't need to be sorry for me because the output of your xerographic printer
hurts my eye. (For after all, all of us need our daily dose of irritation:
I satisfy my needs in this respect by exposure to audible wallpaper, xerographic
computer output and similar would-be services to the consumer.)

I am puzzled by your ban on my use of the verb "to degrade": I thought I
had used it correctly, in the sense of "to impair the quality of". But let me
propose a deal: you allow me to dislike your poor xerographic printer output
(and to say so), and I promise not to mind if you call me a snob.

As far as the mechanics of manuscript production are concerned, I can
warmly recommend to all prospective authors to train themselves to get their
texts nearly right the first time: it is a fast, efficient, and cheap way of
working that almost always gives great esthetic and intellectual satisfaction.

And finally: if you have the text of your recent letter still in your
computer files, you could do me three favours: inserting the missing "W."
in the first line of the address, and correcting the spelling errors in the
next two lines of the address.

As EWD581 - 1 your letter will get the same distribution as EWD574, my
letter to Zohar.

Zohar Manna showed me your letter of 26 July. I am sorry you "vehemently abhor"
computer produced manuscripts in different type fonts. I wish our xerographic printer
had higher resolution and didn't make smudges when it hasn't recently been adjusted; we
do the best we can. You are entitled to your tastes, but when you claim that people
with different tastes are using computers to "degrade our lives", you are contributing to an
atmosphere of snobbery that has done much to degrade discussion of programming style.
Consider this also a protest against the language used in your campaign against gotos.
(Sorry our boldface isn't bolder).

As the inventor of one of the first languages (LISP) that allowed programming
without gotos, I nevertheless consider that they have their uses. However, my main
objection is to the character of the campaign you launched against them, which seemed
to be based on an appeal to snobbery and seemed to encourage more snobbery.

As you see, justified right margins are optional in computer produced documents. Many people share your preference for unjustified lines, but it is wrong to make a moral issue of it. As a matter of taste, I find the backwards words fi and od unpleasing
and would prefer parentheses or begins and ends for resolving ambiguities.

I am glad you like the content of Manna's and Waldinger's report. Manna would be
an excellent expositor even if his reports had to be incised in clay tablets and
baked, but the polished style and the prompt appearance may owe something to the
opportunity for frequent revision afforded by computer produced documents. Certainly,
this was one of our main reasons for pioneering them at this laboratory. Moreover, we
cannot afford the secretarial time required to make several versions of a typescript.

If you felt like distributing this protest to your EWD list, I would be
grateful.